Indian Vanguard

  • April-May-June 2011

    Peoples March 2011- April May June 01 copy
  • Who is the problem, the CPI (Maoist) or the Indian State?

  • Democracy’ at its worst !

  • Narayanpatna: Fact Finding Report

  • Interview: Aruna Roy

    The State wiil fail if the army and air force are used against the maoists

    Interview with Aruna Roy

  • The Heart of India is Under attack- Arundhati Roy

    Arundhati roy 22

  • Peoples March, Novemeber

    Pm Nove 2009 Issue 1101 copy

  • Debates on Lalgarh

    Debates on Lalgarh copy

  • Interview: Koteswar Rao

  • Green Hunt: Fact finding Report

    FFR Green Hunt copy1

  • Govt at war with Maoists to aid MNCs: Arundhati

    Arundhati roy 2

  • Stop Green Hunt

    Let us deman copy

  • Interview: Ganapathi

  • Statement against Military offencive

  • Singur to Lalgarh via Nandigram

    Singur to Lalgarh via Nandigram 3

  • Confronting Guns of Peace: Bastar Faces its Worst Crisis

  • Lalgarh: A hopeful spark

    Revolut copy

  • Maoist Images


    Gaddhar in a pro CPI Maoist Rally


  • Lalgarh Images

  • People’s Truth

  • Advertisements

India is a corporate, Hindu state: Arundhati Roy

Posted by Admin on September 15, 2010

Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. At the end of a week when the Maoists have been on the front pages practically every day, we present a completely different perspective to that of the government’s. My guest today is an author, essayist and Booker Prize winner, Arundhati Roy.

Karan Thapar: I want to talk to you about how you view the Maoists and how you think the government should respond, but first, how do you view the recent hostage taking in Bihar where four policemen were kidnapped and kept kidnapped for eight days, and one of them – Lukas Tete – murdered?

Arundhati Roy: I don’t think there is anything revolutionary about killing a person that is in custody. I have made a statement where I said it was as bad as the police killing Azad, as they did, in a fake encounter in Andhra. But, I actually shy away from this atrocity-based analysis that’s coming out of our TV screens these days because a part of it is meant for you to lose the big picture about what is this war about, who wants the war? Who needs the war?

Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about the big picture. But, before I come to that, let me point out something else. In the last one year, the Maoists have beheaded Francis Induwar and Sanjoy Ghosh; they have killed Lokus Tete. They have kidnapped other policemen. There have been devastating attacks in Dantewada, there has been the sabotage of the Gyaneshwari Express. In your eyes, does it amount to legitimate strategy or tactics, or does it detract from the Maoist cause?

Arundhati Roy: You can’t bundle them all together. For example the train accident. I don’t think anybody knows who did it yet.

Karan Thapar: Everyone’s convinced that the Maoists…

Arundhati Roy: Everyone can be convinced. But it is not enough to be convinced. You got to have facts and the facts are unravelling every day.

Karan Thapar: What about the Dantewada, the beheadings, the kidnappings?

Arundhati Roy: This thing is that now what’s happening is that there is a situation of conflict, of war. So, you have set out a litany of the terrible acts of violence that have taken place inflicted by one side and left out the picture of what’s going on the other side, which is that you have two hundred thousand paramilitary forces closing in on these poorest villages, evicting people, burning people. Of course, all violence is terrible but if you want to get into what actually is going on, we will have to discuss it in slightly more detail.

Karan Thapar: So what you are suggesting is that we have a spiral of violence where what one side does to the other justifies the response and, in a sense, you don’t want to blame one or the other. You see them both as equally guilty?

Arundhati Roy: No I don’t. I don’t see both as equally guilty and I don’t want to justify anything. I see a government breaking every sort of law in the Constitution that it has about tribal people and assault on the homelands of millions of people and some, there is a resistance force that is resisting that. Now, that situation is becoming violent, becoming ugly. And if you start trying to extract morality out of it, you are going to be in a mess.

Karan Thapar: But one thing that is crystal clear from what you said is you see the government as the first person, the first party, at fault. The bigger fault, the first fault, is the government’s, you see the Maoists as just responding.

Arundhati Roy: I see the government absolutely, as the major aggressor. As far as the Maoists are concerned, of course, their ideology is an ideology of overthrowing the Indian state with violence. However, I don’t believe that if the Indian state was a just state, if ordinary people had some minor hope for justice, the Maoists would just be a marginal group of militants with no popular appeal.

Karan Thapar: So the Maoists get support and strength from the fact that you don’t believe that the Indian state is just.

Arundhati Roy: Let me tell you, forget the Maoists. Every resistance movement, armed or unarmed, and the Maoists today are fighting to implement the Constitution, and the government is vandalising it.

Karan Thapar: So the real constitutionalists are the Maoists and the real breakers of the Constitution is the government?

Arundhati Roy: Not only the Maoists, all resistance groups.

Karan Thapar: Let’s focus for the moment on the Maoists because they are the ones that have been in the news all this week. The prime minister sees the Maoists as the single biggest security threat to the country. I take it that your perception of them is completely different. How do you perceive the Maoists?

Arundhati Roy: I perceive them as a group of people who have at a most militant end in the bandwidth of resistance movements that exist in the cities, in the planes and in the forests.

Karan Thapar: But what are they seeking to do? What is their justification?

Arundhati Roy: Well, their ultimate goal, as they say quite clearly, is to overthrow the Indian state and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is their ultimate goal but…

Karan Thapar: Do you, Arundhati Roy, support that goal?

Arundhati Roy: I don’t support that goal in the sense that I don’t believe the solution to the problem the world is in right now will come from an imagination either communist or capitalist because…

Karan Thapar: That I understand but do you support any attempt to overthrow the Indian state?

Arundhati Roy: Well, I can’t say I do because they will lead me from here, in chains.

Karan Thapar: That technicality apart, it sounds as if you do.

Arundhati Roy: However, I believe that the Indian state has abdicated its responsibility to the people. I believe that. I believe that when a state is no longer bound, neither legally nor morally by the Indian Constitution, either we should rephrase the preamble of the Indian Constitution which says…

Karan Thapar: Or?

Arundhati Roy: Which says we are a sovereign, democratic, secular republic. We should rephrase it and say we are a corporate, Hindu, satellite state.

Karan Thapar: Or?

Arundhati Roy: Or we have to have a government which respects the Constitution or we change the Constitution.

Karan Thapar: Let me be blunt. It sounds very much to the audience as if you are trying to find a clever, subtle way of saying that you do support the Maoists commitment to overthrow the state but you are scared to say it upfront because you are scared that you would be whisked away to jail.

Arundhati Roy: If I say that I support the Maoists’ desire to overthrow the Indian State, I would be saying that I am a Maoist. But I am not a Maoist.

Karan Thapar: But you sympathise with them.

Arundhati Roy: I do sympathise with all the movements. I am on this side of the line with a group of people who are saying that here is a State that is willing to bring out the Army against the poorest people not just in the country but in the world. I cannot support that.

Karan Thapar: Let me put this to you. You sympathise with the Maoist cause, but what about the tactics that the Maoists use? The problem is that the Maoists want to trade a new democratic order not by persuading people, not by winning legitimate elections but by armed liberation struggle. To many, that is tantamount to civil war. Do you go that far with them?

Arundhati Roy: There is already a civil war. I don’t believe that a resistance movement that believes only in violence will lead to a new democracy. I don’t believe that. Neither do I believe that if you doctrinally say you must only be non-violent, I believe that is a twisted way of supporting the status quo. I believe that has to be a bandwidth of resistance and I certainly believe that when your village is surrounded by 800 CRPF men who are raping and burning and looting, you can’t say I am going on a hunger strike. Then, I support people’s right to resist that.

Karan Thapar: But put this to me. If you support, no matter what qualifications you add, the right of the Maoists to resist with violence: whether you call it armed liberation struggle or whatever.

Arundhati Roy: You keep on going to these Maoists.

Karan Thapar: If you support that, no matter with what qualification, how then can you deny the State the right to resort to arms to defend itself?

Arundhati Roy: The State doesn’t have to defend itself. The State is supposed to represent the people and defend the people.

Karan Thapar: But if the State is under attack, it is the people that are under attack and…

Arundhati Roy: It is not under attack. The State is perpetrating the attack. That is what I am trying to say. The State is going in violation of its own Constitution and perpetrating an attack. If you look at the recent report, the censured chapter in a recent report by the Panchayati Raj, it says so clearly: the State is being completely illegal in its actions. What do you suggest people should do when an army, a police, a paramilitary, an air force is going to start making war on the poor? Do you suggest that they should leave and live in camps and allow the rich and the corporates and the mining sector to take over?

Karan Thapar: So you are saying that the Maoists and all the other resistance fighters are left with no option but to fight back?

Arundhati Roy: What I am saying is that if a State respects non-violent resistance as has been the case in years, but if you ignore non-violence, by default you privilege violence.

Karan Thapar: But are the Maoists actually pursuing their goal, which you share, non-violently, or are they pursuing it with violence? That’s the problem. There is a real issue here that the end seems to justify the means. The question is: do they?

Arundhati Roy: You are not listening to me. I am saying that there is a juggernaut of injustice that has been moving forward, displacing millions of people. Why do we have 836 million people living in on less than Rs 20 a day? Why do we have 60 million displaced people? Because the government refuses. For the last 25 years, it has refused to listen to non-violence.

Karan Thapar: So you see the Maoists as victims?

Arundhati Roy: I see the people as victims of something. If you look at the ideology of the Maoists, they don’t think of themselves as victims. But that ideology is getting purchased among people, in the popular imagination because of the incredible injustice that is being perpetrated by the Indian State.

Karan Thapar: In short, the fault is almost entirely on the government’s side?

Arundhati Roy: It is.

Karan Thapar: You say that boldly and bluntly?

Arundhati Roy: Absolutely.

Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about the prospects of talks but first, let me ask you about Azad. In May, it emerged that the home minister had asked Swami Agnivesh to facilitate talks with the Maoist leadership, and in turn he established contacts with the Maoists leader Azad. But in July, in an unexplained police encounter, Azad suddenly died. Do you believe that was a deliberate ploy to bring Azad into the open and then murder him?

Arundhati Roy: Yes I do.

Karan Thapar: You really mean that? The government laid a trap to murder Azad?

Arundhati Roy: That’s what, from all the facts that are emerging, that’s what it seems to point to.

Karan Thapar: Why did they do this? Why would they kill the one man with whom they have rational expectations of talks?

Arundhati Roy: I have been saying this for few months now that you have to understand that the government needs this war. It needs this war to clear the land, to hand over, to actualise these MoUs that have been signed. If you read the business papers, they are very clear about that.

Karan Thapar: If the government wants war, how do you interpret the government’s attempt to have talks? One is contradictory to the other.

Arundhati Roy: Yeah. It needs the war but it needs to keep this smiling benign mask of democracy. So, it offers talks on the one hand and undermines it on the other.

Karan Thapar: But even if you accept this strange theory that the government is Janus-faced, two-faced, why would it destroy that mask by killing Azad? Why would it destroy itself?

Arundhati Roy: Because if you look at what was happening, Azad was beginning to sound dangerously reasonable.

Karan Thapar: To whom?

Arundhati Roy: To all of us.

Karan Thapar: On the basis of one interview to The Hindu, you have come to the conclusion about Azad sounding reasonable?

Arundhati Roy: Come on Karan, we all know about Azad. He has been around for years. He has written a lot.

Karan Thapar: You may but people surely don’t. To them, Azad is a mystery.

Arundhati Roy: No, not at all. For example, the piece that he wrote in Outlook, it was published after his death but it was sent around before.

Karan Thapar: But even if one accepts your theory that the government killed Azad because he was beginning to sound and look reasonable, that would only have made him a credible interlocutor and fit in better into their mask. Surely, that in a sense makes it even more ridiculously contradictory to kill him.

Arundhati Roy: Why would it be. Let’s say there are two sides at war, there are more than two but everyone wants to make it binary so, for the sake of argument, accept it. When one side sends an envoy and the other side kills them, what does it mean? That one side does not want peace. That’s what it means. That’s a reasonable assumption.

Karan Thapar: So this is a duplicitous government?

Arundhati Roy: Absolutely.

Karan Thapar: In which case, let me come to the critical issue which I want to discuss. What are the prospects of talks? The government has repeatedly said that it would be willing to talk provided the Maoists abjure violence, not even asking the Maoists to lay down arms, and many people believe that that’s a reasonable and perhaps, even a generous offer. How do you view the government’s position on talks?

Arundhati Roy: I think that if you were to go down to those forests and see what’s going on, when you have these two hundred thousand paramilitaries patrolling the tribal villages, the cordon and search operations are on, the killings are on, the siege is on, what do you mean to abjure violence? If you say that there should be a ceasefire, mutual ceasefire, which is I think the most reasonable thing, then we can be talking. But if you say you should abjure violence, what does that mean?

Karan Thapar: So one sided abjuring of violence is not what you think will be acceptable, but a mutual ceasefire on both sides?

Arundhati Roy: I think it’s absolutely urgent that there should be a ceasefire on both sides.

Karan Thapar: Simultaneous?

Arundhati Roy: Yes. The government reports have said that these MoUs should be re-examined. Chidambaram himself promised in an interview that he would freeze them. Why doesn’t he do that?

Karan Thapar: He is probably waiting for a sign from the Maoists that they will respond. He doesn’t want to do it unilaterally.

Arundhati Roy: They responded in writing now; Azad responded in writing.

Karan Thapar: Azad is no more. Let me put this to you. You are beginning to suggest in this interview steps, which if they were taken simultaneously by both sides, will actually in some way facilitate talks. Would you be prepared, since you know the Maoists and trusted by the Maoists, to act as a mediator?

Arundhati Roy: Look, if you studied the peace-talks process in Andhra, you see that this business of picking one person and announcing it on the media, both sides have done it. Chidambaram has picked arbitrarily Swami Agnivesh. Maoists arbitrarily announced on the radio that we want this one or that one. That’s not how it works. In Andhra, it took almost a year for this committee of citizens to form themselves as responsible people. It should not be one person.

Karan Thapar: Swami Agnivesh, who you say was arbitrarily picked, almost succeeded in bringing Azad to some talking point, except for the fact that as you say, he was killed. But he almost succeeded. So I come back, since you are trusted by the Maoists and since you speak a language, that at least in English, the government can understand, would you be prepared to act as a mediator?

Arundhati Roy: Look Karan, I don’t think it should be one person. I think there should be a group of people who are used to taking decisions collectively.

Karan Thapar: Will a committee?

Arundhati Roy: Absolutely. That’s what happened in Andhra. There was a committee of persons.

Karan Thapar: Isn’t that a mess?

Arundhati Roy: No, it is absolutely vital.

Karan Thapar: Would you be a part of it?

Arundhati Roy: I don’t think I am good at it. I am a maverick.

Karan Thapar: Would you be prepared to be one of that committee?

Arundhati Roy: Not really. I would not like to be because I don’t think I have those skills. But I think there are people who would be very good at it.

Karan Thapar: In June, writing in The Hindu, Justice Krishna Aiyar publicly called on the Maoists to unconditionally come forward for talks. Would you make a similar statement?

Arundhati Roy: No. Not when there are two hundred thousand paramilitary forces closing in on the villages. I say unconditionally both sides should say there should be a ceasefire. Then you can see.

Karan Thapar: But you are not prepared to facilitate that being a mediator or, even part of the committee.

Arundhati Roy: I’ll try.

Karan Thapar: Try! So suddenly you are changing your position.

Arundhati Roy: I don’t know how to think about this.

Karan Thapar: If pushed and persuaded, you could accept.

Arundhati Roy: Look, you talk to me like you talk to politicians – will you stand for elections?

Karan Thapar: No, I am simply trying to get you to give me a clear answer. What I sense is that you are tempted but you are uncertain.

Arundhati Roy: I feel that all of us should do what we can but certainly, I don’t feel that I’ll be very good at it. But, I think there should be a committee of people with experience in negotiating, with experienced people like BD Sharma, who has such a long experience.

Karan Thapar: Let’s come to a different issue. The government, particularly the home minister, often look upon people who are sympathetic to Maoists’ cause as collaborators, sections of the press even call them traitors. Number one in that category is bound to be Arundhati Roy. How do you respond to such branding?

Arundhati Roy: Well, this is an old game.

Karan Thapar: But it continues forcefully every time.

Arundhati Roy: I think the reason they were also unnerved, the government as well as most of the press, which is clearly on one side in this, is that from being people who are marooned in the jungle in one sense, when operation Green Hunt happened, a number of activists, a number of intellectuals came forward and said look, it is not acceptable to us. And that undermined the position of this open and shut case that was going on all this time.

Karan Thapar: So the certainty of the government’s position was weakened and undermined by the intellectuals who supported the government which is why the government branded them collaborators?

Arundhati Roy: Again you are saying the Maoists.

Karan Thapar: But that’s why the government called them collaborators?

Arundhati Roy: What has happened is that the government has expanded the definition of Maoists to mean everyone who is disagreeing with it. What people like myself have done is to complicate the scenario. Say it’s not that simple. Of course it doesn’t upset me because I like to say what I think very clearly. I am not worried about being called names.

Karan Thapar: And in a sense the government calling you a collaborator is proof that you actually made the government uncomfortable.

Arundhati Roy: I am proud if I made the government uncomfortable because it should be bloody uncomfortable with what it’s doing.

Karan Thapar: A pleasure talking to you.


13 Responses to “India is a corporate, Hindu state: Arundhati Roy”

  1. ss said

    insane,useless,good for nothing use to the human kind from this lady. not sure y press n media speak to sort of people and write all this shit and waste time.

    • Green Red said

      If she talks shit then eat it.

      Isn’t it a Hindu state? So who the hell is going to be shooting Muslems in Keshmir in their funerals?

      I ran from an Islamic Republic and hate the guts of Pakistan, Al Qaeda and other theocratic states.

      That sure includes the Hindu state and the Zionist State that’s Mossad is training Hindu special police officers and giving them thermo sensor guns and what have you.

      Whenever you could justify the following article of shooting in funeral, you’re welcome in the world but, an Indian Maoist state – that surely will be way better than what Mao did in China is what that needs to get your head off of pull of shit.

      Troops fire on Indian Kashmir funeral, killing 1
      The Associated Press
      Saturday, September 18, 2010; 5:04 AM

      SRINAGAR, India — Government forces opened fire on a funeral procession in curfew-bound Indian-controlled Kashmir on Saturday, killing one civilian and wounding at least 12 others, police and local residents said.

      Thousands of people in Anantnag, a town south of the main city of Srinagar, defied the curfew to participate in the funeral of a 17-year-old boy whose body was recovered from a river early Saturday.

      Anantnag residents said the boy drowned when he was chased by paramilitary soldiers trying to break up an anti-India rally earlier in the week.

      Police and paramilitary soldiers opened fire on the procession after some mourners tried to set fire to the house of a pro-India politician, a police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. One civilian was killed, he said.

      Three of the wounded were in critical condition, he said.

      Residents of Anantnag denied attacking the politician’s home.

      “It was an unprovoked firing. They are not even allowing funeral processions,” said Ghulam Nabi Nath, a local resident.

      The police officer said the procession violated a nearly round-the-clock curfew.

      The Himalayan region has been rocked by widespread protests against Indian rule since June. At least 100 people have died in clashes between protesters and paramilitary forces, but with protests escalating over the past week, the government on Friday deployed the army for crowd control.

      Anti-India sentiment runs deep in Kashmir, which is divided between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan and claimed by both. The protesters are demanding independence for the mostly Muslim region from Hindu-dominated India or a merger with predominantly Muslim Pakistan.

      Also Saturday, a young man wounded by police gunfire in clashes earlier in the week died in a hospital in Srinagar. Thousands joined his funeral procession through the city as police and paramilitary soldiers looked on.

      In another incident overnight, demonstrators set fire to a police officer’s home in southern Pinjoora village, police said.

      The current unrest is reminiscent of the late 1980s, when protests against New Delhi’s rule sparked an armed conflict that has so far killed more than 68,000 people, mostly civilians.

      – – — —

      So what different is that from Nazism who got the sign anyway from somewhere there or, Zionism that acts worse?

      • BHISHMA said

        Please stop becoming PSEUDO INTELLECTUALS. Just to gain attention you people are spreading ideas contradictory to the national sentiments. If we are a HINDU corporate state, then it is a fact and this must be accepted by you. Take Pride in it as you cannot run away from your identity of being the part of SINDHU civilization.As HINDUS are a majority in INDIA for all practical reasons we are bound to be influenced by the HINDU way of life.Just by picking one sided stories from the newspapers stop befooling the public. And remember that by weakening our national agenda for Kashmir do not think you are the revolutionaries. If you really want a revolution , then first refine your ideology thats worth of nothing.

  2. KBS said

    Arundhati is one of the very few surviving individuals forcefully standing up to the massive tyranny of the state, the smear campaign by the press and the abysmal callousness of the educated middle-class. She is one of the most articulate voices arguing endlessly in support of equality, social justice and eradication of structural discrimination and structural violence. Wish her a long and active life! In this dark hour, only people like her are actually preserving the conscience of this nation.

    • Green Red said

      Thanks friend.

      In her Walking with Comrades, she also bluntly questions the past of the ML party when due to extreme adoration for Mao the party took the silence toward Pakistan large killings. Today, in Sudan still China’s hand is bloody. China’s bloody hand has been the logo of its foreing relations at times worse than the Soviet Union (that had more pro Indian state attitude) but, 20th century is over and, many mistakes of China, great leap forward that had copied Soviet’s mistakes in agriculture is already known. Thus i believe that India – the greatest comig revolution will have a better Maoist karma

  3. KBS said

    Arundhati is one of the very few surviving individuals forcefully standing up to the massive tyranny of the state, the smear campaign by the press and the abysmal callousness of the educated middle-class. She is one of the most articulate voices arguing endlessly in support of equality, social justice and eradication of structural discrimination and structural violence. Wish her a long and active life! In this dark hour, only people like her are actually fighting to preserve the conscience of this nation.

  4. RMCT said

    Arundhati is to be greatly honoured for her extraordinary courage in spealking out against a corrupt and rapacious govrnment that opresses the people of India. Unfortunaltely a mojority of the upstart middle class with abysmally low humanity, do service to the rich and support the corrupt poilicies of the govrenment. They are unmoved by teh sad plight of the people but are up in arms to throw stones at Arundhati. No doubt the resistance will grow violent and uncontrollable if the government pursues it’s oppression on people.

  5. Ramesh Berry said

    Maoists or un-Maoists Act

    I congratulate Arundhati Roy for calling spade a spade.

    Four Jawans were taken as prisoners by the red rebels. According to newspaper reports, one of them were short dead and three of them were released. Since there is a ban on Naxalites, we do not know under what circumstances, one of the prisoners got killed. It is not safe to depend on one sided report of the newspapers which are pro-establishment.

    Mao-Tse-Tung writes in his book on Gueriella Warfare that the best way to spread revolutionary ideas among enemy soldiers is to give best treatment to the prisoners of war. Explain them your cause and release them. If the same soldier is captured second, third or even fourth time, still release him.

    No doubt, the nation demands explanation from the red rebels and they must explain it to the people whether it was a mistake, and if so then they must admit it, apologize for it and as far as possible compensate the loss by helping deceased’s dependants, in whatsoever possible manner.

    As a rule, people have not approved killing of soldiers taken as prisoners by the Naxalites. This is both, a bad principle and a bad policy. It is also anti-Maoism. Therefore, I also register my protest as it is no better than any fake police encounter. If it was to force the government to give up the policy of false encounters, then it is a different story, though tasteless, because prudence is virtue.

    In Vietnam War, when Americans adopted the policy of shooting every guerriella in a cold-blooded manner, they shot a 25 year old communist. The guerriellas also declared to shoot a 25 year old American soldier. I saw both the pictures in the newspapers. The communist died shouting the slogan “ long live Comrade Ho-Chi-Mi” while the American died with tears rolling down his eyes. Before shooting the American soldier, the communist guerriellas told him, “We hate to kill you like this but we have to teach a lesson to your government”.

    This single example brought the Americans to their senses and they gave up their policy of shooting the red guerriellas in a cold-blooded manner. I hope both, the police and the Naxalites, will give up shedding of blood in cold-blooded manner. People expect more of humanism from revolutionaries as compared to police who are known for their brutality.

    As a lawyer, I request the government to give-up the policy of murder through false encounters. Allow the law to take its own course. Extra-legal methods put the government in dock. At the same time I also request the Maoists not to kill “jawans” captured by them. Please treat them as human beings engaged in their socio-economic struggle for existence. After all they are peasants in uniform. They are also victim of this corrupt socio-economic system. They must get the benefit of doubt for they are fighting for their job unlike the Maoists who are fighting for a mission, in their own way, right or wrong, only time will tell.

    Our government may brand Maoists as terrorists but according to Ernesto Che Guevara, a guerriella is a social reformer who has taken up arms when all other peaceful methods have failed to bring social change in society. If both the sides will keep this fact in mind both the sides will gain and earn applause from our people, by and large.

    We plead both the sides to shun violence and counter-violence because violence breeds counter-violence and sparks the vicious circle.

    • Green Red said

      Thanks a lot Ramesh for pointing out the point about the cop killed.

      No. In no way i don’t compare killing of a police whose job is to defend the rich and kill the poor with, killing Azad who was the spokeperson of the oppressed people’s radical movement. Right now I am busy translating this article into Farsi and, hope Kasama will post it. All power to the people! Down with imperialism and its running dogs.

  6. keizer said

    Fuck Azad, fuck this bitch too, hope they all get shot in the ass. fucking retards

  7. Ramesh Berry said

    Nervous Judgement

    The Babri Masjid- Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple case judgement should open our eyes to see the facts and to realize the realities. It is neither legal nor “panchayti judgement”. It is a “nervous judgement”. All the judicial officers, politicians, Hindus, Muslims etc. were nervous and trembling with fear of impending danger. The maturity is shown only by the common man who ignored the absurdities involved in the case and the fear associated with it.

    The absurdities were apparent: When there is no historic proof that Babbar the Brave ordered the construction of the mosque and when it is also an admitted fact that the Fakir, Mir Baqi, was a Shia why Sunnis are so touchy about the masjid? In that case it is a Shia Masjid. Why Sunnis are so up-set? When there is no proof of Ram as historic person why Hindus are so aggressive about it? Apart from this, it sounds amusing that Mata Sita as a Maharani (Queen) used to cook food in her kitchen like a common housewife.

    Now we have a ruling that an appeal can be rejected by simply writing, “Appeal dismissed” without giving reasons for it. A court can decide a case merely on belief (no matter howsoever foggy or even absurd) and not on knowledge. Judiciary can decide a case by going beyond the issues. What a mockery of law and justice!

    The disputed structure was a historic monument demolished by Hindu Talibans. It was our national property and its possession should have been given to our archaeological department. Since vandalism has taken place, no construction should be built on it and the archaeological department must preserve it as it is, to prove the result of Hindu vandalism of the 20th century. This should have been the observation of the court.

    The judgement has destroyed the hope and confidence of the people in the judiciary. Just as they do not rely on police, similarly one cannot go to the court with confidence to get justice. Long before one of the presidents of India compared courts with casino. It’s high time to bring reforms in judiciary.

    Date: 10-10-2010

  8. Anurag said

    basically it is all about money. Dirty politicians have leased tribal villages to American corporate companies. Government has signed contracts with them and a large amount of money is at stake. Tribals are poor people living there and government want them out so that they can start getting money as commission from these companies ( How much Raja made in 2G spectrum ivestigation is going on ) Before the elections they want to have as much as possible because MONEY will make them win elections. These tribal groups have more women in them because women are the worst sufferers. There has been NO democracy NO security for poor and NO development in these area women have been the worst victum . Now these tribals are fed up. They want their land and they want to live there lives. If you speak you are secessionist and you can be put in jail. Please read what article 124 A IPC is : Whosoever by words or written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the government shall be punished by life imprisonment.This IPC section is used frequently Dr.Sen is sentenced to life imprisonment recently what was his fault he met naxal leaders in prison. You call India a democracy folks this government need these unrest so they create such laws and rule and loot this country. Tribals are standing up alone against this corrupt nuclear power government. If Mahatma Gandhi was alive today he would have been standing on tribal’s side and started a fast until death and probably died. Sitting in your cozy homes and talk about these tribals is easy but living in tribal area facing police atrocities on daily basis is very different. People have seen laws like MISA during Indira Gandhi emergency time in 1975-76 she made this law against smugglers and then used it against political opponents POTA in Maharashtra was abused against innocent people. This government has proved again again that it cannot be trusted. Tribals are poor people they want to live peacefully in there villages please let them live.

  9. sd said

    maychi gand

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: